FIRST
DIVISION
INTESTATE ESTATE OF G.R. No. 131614
THE LATE FELIPE
Present:
ANACORETA B. FRANCISCO,
Judicial
Administratrix-Petitioner,
PANGANIBAN,
C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,*
- versus
- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
ILOG AGRICULTURAL
CORPORATION,
Intervenor,
Promulgated:
NICASIA
Heir-Respondent.
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Felipe Buenaventura, who was twice
married, died intestate on
The
inventory of Felipe’s estate showed that he owned twenty (20) parcels of land
located in Ilog, Negros Occidental and a building of strong materials:
I N V
E N T O R Y
LOTS NOS. LOCATION ASSESSED VALUE
1. P 390.00
2. 1809 Vista
Alegre, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 2,780.00
3. 1863-A “
“ “ “
“ 4,830.00
4.
1863-B “
“ “ “
“ 10,360.00
5. 1869
“ “ “
“ “ 1,590.00
6.
1871-B “
“ “ “
“ 37,460.00
7. 1882 Dancalan, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 110.00
8. 1894
“
“ “ “ 2,240.00
9. 1902
10. 1933 “ “ “
“ “ 6,600.00
11. 2046
“
“ “ “
“ 5,030.00
12. 2048
Dancalan, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 5,830.00
13. 2073
“
“ “ “ 9,280.00
14. 2194
Calubang, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 5,530.00
15. 2270
“
“ “ “ 1,250.00
16. 2380 Gusa,
Calubang, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 110.00
17. 2655
Hda. Rosario, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 650.00
18. 2653
19. 1046 Camansi,
Ilog, Neg. Occ.
1,280.00
20. 2271
Dancalan, Ilog, Neg. Occ. 200.00
B U I
L D I N G
1. House of
strong materials situated in Dancalan,
Ilog, Neg. Occ. 7,000.00
COLLECTIBLE ACCOUNT
From Alcibiades Mombay, La
Carlota, Neg. Occ. 1,425.00
Total
P104,125.00[2]
=========
Lot No.
2194 was being cultivated by two agricultural tenants.
Anacoreta B. Francisco, one of the
children of the deceased by his first wife, filed a Petition in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, for the settlement of the
estate and for appointment as administratrix.
In due course, the intestate court appointed her as administratrix. She, in turn, appointed her son, Michael
Francisco, as her “encargado.”[3] Anacoreta left for the
On
1. Pedro Buenaventura; aged 57; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
2. Nicasia Buenaventura; aged 55; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
3. Flora Buenaventura; aged 54; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
4. Anacor[e]ta Buenaventura; aged 53; 2-B, Urma Drive, Baltao
Subdiv., Parañaque, Rizal.
5. Luz Buenaventura; aged 52; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
6. Emilia Buenaventura; aged 51; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros Occidental.
7. Simon Buenaventura, Sr.; who died during the
Japanese Occupation; represented by his widow and children, to wit:
(a) Carmen Meñez; widow; aged 66;
(b) Simon Buenaventura, Jr.; aged 37;
(c) Agnes Buenaventura; aged 36;
(d) Teresita Buenaventura; aged 35;
(e) Mila Buenaventura; aged 26;
The RTC also listed the children and
lawful heirs of the deceased by his second wife:
1. Purisima Buenaventura; aged 38; Dancalan, Ilog, Negros
Occidental.
2. Rodolfo Buenaventura; aged 37; Central
Bacolod-Murcia,
3. Thelma Buenaventura; aged 36; Aguisan, Himamaylan, Negros
Occidental.
4. Phoebe Buenaventura; aged 35;
5. Jose Buenaventura; aged 34; Central Bacolod-Murcia,
6. Antonio Buenaventura; aged 33; c/o Rodolfo Buenaventura,
Bacolod-Murcia, Bacolod City.
7. Sally Buenaventura; aged 26;
In the meantime, some of the heirs sold
their undivided shares in the estate. One
of the vendees was the Ilog Agricultural Corporation (IAC) which acquired an
undivided 18/29 portion in the share of nine of the heirs, including Lot Nos.
2194 and 2380.[6] Another assignee, Manuel A. Gomez, who, along
with IAC, intervened in the case, and the intestate court ordered the substitution
of parties.[7]
Appointed as Joint Special
Administrators were Arnulfo Nono and Angel Gabriel, who submitted a Project of Partition[8]
of the estate dated
1. To NICASIA BUENAVENTURA 2/29 shares
2. To FLORA BUENAVENTURA 2/29 shares
3. To ANACOR[E]TA BUENAVENTURA 2/29 shares
4. To LUZ BUENAVENTURA 2/29 shares
5. To EMILIA
6. To PEDRO
7. To BEETHOVEN
8. To the intervenor MANUEL A. GOMEZ 16/29 shares to which shall be added 4 has. of sugar land and 2 has. of rice land to be taken from the 2/29 shares of Pedro Buenaventura.[9]
On
In an Order
dated
On
REAL
PROPERTIES
TOTAL AREA 98.6676 hectares, more or less.
NAME OF HEIR SHARE IN HECTARES
1. Nicasia Buenaventura
2/29th shares 7.7247 hectares, more or less.
2/29th shares 7.7247 hectares, more or less.
(per deed of sale executed by
her late sister, Flora, while yet alive) _______________________
TOTAL - 15.4494 hectares, more or less.
2. Anacoreta Buenaventura
2/29th shares 7.7247 hectares, more or less.
3. Emilia Buenaventura
2/29th shares 7.7247 hectares, more or less.
4. Pedro Buenaventura
Unsold share 1.6132 hectares, more or less.
5. Simon, Purisima, Rodolfo, Thelma,
Jose, Febe, Sally & Antonio (all
surnamed
1/8th share each (.6132 hectares)
(their shares from deceased sister,
Luz Buenaventura 4.9051
hectares, more or less.
6. Beethoven Buenaventura
1/29th share 3.8657 hectares, more or less.
7. Ilog Agricultural Corporation
18/29th shares
(Shares bought from the nine (9)
surviving legal heirs, namely,
Simon, Pedro, Purisima, Rodolfo,
Thelma, Jose, Febe, Sally &
Antonio 57.3840 hectares, more or less.[11]
In an Order[12]
dated
Michael, however,
objected to the partition on the ground that it was incomplete and
erroneous. In his Compliance[13]
to the intestate court’s directive to state his objections in writing, he
alleged that IAC had occupied Lot No. 2194 long before the approval of the
project of partition, and that the agreement was for IAC to cede Lot Nos. 2194
and 2380 in favor of Anacoreta and Beethoven in exchange for the latter’s share
in Lot No. 1863-B. He also claimed that
IAC had already harvested the produce therefrom. The pleading contained the following prayer:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable
Court that the Order of December 20, 1991 be set aside and that the special
administrators be ordered to submit a new project of partition as reflected in a
new sketch plan after all the foregoing grounds for objection as enumerated in
this COMPLIANCE are threshed and ironed out.[14]
In view of this objection, Attys. Sorbito
and
Portion of
Portion of Lot No. 2073, colored BLACK, which is supposed to be share of Luz Buenaventura who is already dead, goes to the HEIRS OF LUZ BUENAVENTURA.
Lot Nos. 1709, 2655, 1869, 1894, 2270, 1882, 238 and 2653, colored
GREEN, are allotted to NICASIA, except for Lot No. 1871-A, colored green, which
is supposed to be part of Nicasia’s share, will be swapped to Lot No. 2380 and
portion of Lot No. 2194, colored RED and YELLOW, equivalent to the share of
Nicasia in Lot No. 1871, colored green.
Lot Nos. 1863-B,
1871-B, 2048, 2046, 1046-A and 1982, colored
And in exchange for Lot No. 1871, colored GREEN, this will now become the share of ANACORETA B. FRANCISCO, which will be colored RED, together with Lot No. 1933.
Portion of Lot No.
1871-A, colored YELLOW, and whatever remains in Lot No. 2194 which is estimated
to be not less than one (1) hectare after deducting the share of Nicasia in
lieu of Lot No. 1871-A, shall become the share of BEETHOVEN BUENAVENTURA, to be
colored YELLOW. (Emphasis supplied)[15]
The Joint Commissioners and the counsels
present signed the stenographic notes taken during the conference.
However, the parties, through counsel,
revised the
Nicasia later engaged the services of
Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura as counsel and told him of her objection to the “swapping”
of the two lots under the revised project of partition. Nicasia, through counsel, filed a
Manifestation on
x x x x
2. That
during the hearing of [the] above-entitled case last October 30, 1992, one of
the special administrators, Mr. Michael Francisco, manifested that the share of
Nicasia Buenaventura which has been colored green in Annex “A” and within Lot
No. 1871-B of the Intestate Estate consisting of about seven and a half (7½)
hectares, more or less, was to be swapped to the whole of Lot No. 2194. This
3. That when this swapping of the share of Nicasia Buenaventura from Lot 1871-B to Lot 2194 was brought to her attention, she vehemently denied that she has ever consented or ever authorized Michael Francisco to swap her share in Lot 1871-B with that of Lot 2194. All what (sic) Nicasia Buenaventura wants is that her share in Lot 1871-B as shown in Annex “A” (marked Green) of the Joint Motion aforesaid and approved already by this Honorable Court should be the one to prevail but not to be swapped to Lot 2194;
4. That also during the
Nicasia
insisted that she should retain Lot No. 1871-B which was originally allotted to
her, and prayed that the “swapping” of said lot for Lot No. 2194 be set aside.
On
The intestate court set another
conference of the parties at
In the Manifestation[21]
filed by Nicasia through counsel Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura on
On
During the
hearing on November 25, 1993, IAC, through counsel, and Nicasia Buenaventura
agreed that should a
portion of the latter’s share in Lot No. 1871-B comprising an area of 77,335
square meters be leased by intervenor IAC, she would no longer interpose
further objection to the swapping as previously agreed on October 30, 1992. IAC, represented by Atty. Sorbito, manifested
the corporation’s willingness to lease Nicasia’s share in Lot No. 1871-B with
an area of 77,335 square meters in such an amount as may be agreed upon later. Nicasia agreed to a lease rate of P3,000.00
per hectare payable in advance for three years.
Atty. Sorbito prayed to be allowed to confer with IAC as to the exact
amount and manner of payment of the lease rental, and promised to inform the
intestate court within three days, on or before
On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court rules that Lot No. 1871-B belongs to Ilog Agricultural Corporation, the entire share of Nicasia Buenaventura in Lot No. 1871, colored green, belongs to Anacoreta B. Francisco, and Lot No. 2194, colored red, belongs to Nicasia Buenaventura, in accordance with the swapping agreement of October 30, 1992 and the supplemental agreement of December 10, 1992.
SO ORDERED.
The intestate court gave credence and
full probative weight to the testimony of Michael Francisco, and to the fact
that he was a member of the Joint Commissioners designated to prepare a
physical partition of the estate.[26]
Nicasia appealed the order to the
Court of Appeals (CA), and raised the following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT
ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE ENTIRE SHARE OF NICASIA
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE HEIR-MOVANT-APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED TO HER MONETARY CLAIMS.[27]
Nicasia averred that she never knew of
the swapping of the two lots before
On
WHEREFORE, the lower court’s order
dated
No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[28]
The CA declared that under the
Anacoreta, as the Judicial Administratrix,
thereafter filed a petition for review on certiorari
with this Court on the following issues: (a) whether the factual findings of
the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, may be raised in this Court; (b)
whether a special power of attorney is required for respondents’ counsel, Atty.
Beethoven Buenaventura, to bind her to the new agreement, that is, the swapping
of Lot No. 1871-B with that of Lot No. 2194; (c) whether such authority is
required for the Joint Commissioners to bind respondent to the new agreement; and
(d) whether respondent had agreed, through Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura and
Michael Francisco, to the agreement.
Petitioner
submits that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of Michael
Francisco and its disquisitions on the agreement of respondent to the swapping
of the lots should be accorded due respect by the CA. She avers that no less than Atty. Beethoven
Buenaventura, respondent’s brother and counsel, had agreed to the swapping of
the lots before the hearing on
Petitioner avers that it was not
necessary for Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura, as respondent’s counsel to be
authorized in writing to agree to a swapping of the two lots for and in behalf
of respondent, especially as the respective shares of the other heirs under the
partition had already been delivered.
Petitioner points out that a partition is not a conveyance but simply a
separation and designation of that part of the estate which belongs to each
heir, and cites the ruling in Vda. de Reyes
v. Court of Appeals[30]
to support her claim.
Respondent, for her part, avers that
her counsel, Atty. Buenaventura, had never agreed to the swapping of the two
lots for and in her behalf. She found
out about the proposed swapping for the first time only when the IAC’s counsel,
Atty. Nilo Sorbito, proposed the swapping; and when she learned of it, she vigorously
objected to the proposal. She insists
that although her counsel signed the stenographic notes, he did so in his
behalf as heir and not as her counsel.
The petition has no merit.
The general rule is that the findings
of facts of the CA are conclusive on the Court.
However, the rule does not apply if the trial court’s factual findings
and those of the CA are contradictory or conflicting.[31] While Rule 45 of the Rules of Court mandates
that only questions of law should be raised, where the factual findings of the
trial court and those of the appellate court are contradictory, the Court must
perforce to review the records and make its own findings.
A careful perusal of the records show
that petitioner failed to prove that, before October 30, 1992, respondent
already knew, through Michael Francisco and Beethoven Buenaventura, that Lot
No. 1871-B which was assigned to her would be swapped for a portion of Lot No.
2194. Nor did petitioner adduce in evidence
that respondent had authorized Michael Francisco or Beethoven Buenaventura to
agree, in her behalf, to the swapping of the two lots. While it is true that respondent engaged the
services of Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura as her counsel, she did so only after
It bears stressing that Michael
Francisco was merely the encargado of
the administratrix, a member of the Joint Commissioners tasked to effect a
physical partition of the estate. Any
recommendation made in such capacity is still subject to the action of the
court after due notice to the heirs; unless and until all the parties are
notified of any report/recommendation, thereafter duly heard by the court, the
heirs cannot thereby be bound.
Moreover, respondent is not bound by
the agreement of Atty. Beethoven Buenaventura on the partition of the estate agreed
upon on October 30 and
ATTY. GARAYGAY:
That as one of the co-administrators during the hearing on September 30, 1992, whether he has placed his signature for approval and that a conference was held on October 12, 1982 and their respective shares were being distinguished with identifying colors, and I would like to ask him whether he affirms the partition plan on October 12, 1982 and affixes his signature. I mean, did he affix his signature on the transcript of the stenographic notes report of October 10, 1992 hearing. I think, Your Honor, the signature was not on the parcellary plan but to the transcript of record.
COURT:
Are you willing to answer the manifestation before this Court?
ATTY.
I have already admitted that, Your Honor,
if, at all, I have agreed to the partition relative to the hearing on
COURT:
I am asking you about your signature?
ATTY.
I admit that, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY ATTY. VICENTE
T. GARAYGAY, JR. ON WITNESS ATTY.
BEETHOVEN
ATTY. GARAYGAY:
Did you attach your signature in the
WITNESS:
Not approved yet.
Q: And wherein the 3 of you have to agree on
that proposal made on
A: Myself, Michael Francisco, and Atty. Nilo Sorbito were the ones who affixed our signatures regarding the hearing.
Q: On
A: I will clarify my answer, Your Honor, I have
affixed my signature therein, however, if I have attached my signature thereon,
I was only representing as co-special administrator and was not representing
this share of Nicasia Buenaventura. I
also fully believed (sic) that this
Michael Francisco was duly authorized by his aunt to do the swapping but a week
later, I was surprised when my sister went to Bacolod and I asked her what
transpired in the conference in October 1992 but immediately upon hearing this,
she vehemently opposed having authorized Michael Francisco to the swapping for
her and later on she said that I will prepare to represent her in this
case. She vehemently denied Michael
Francisco to do the swapping of her share over Lot No. 1871-B with that of
Q: Now, according to you since 1991, you already knew that Nicasia Buenaventura has already vehemently opposed, is that correct?
A: No. In 1991, there was no swapping yet. The swapping was made in 1992.
Q: When you were examining the heir Nicasia Buenaventura and she told you in answer to your question that, in 1991, she already knew about the swapping and she objected to the proposed swapping now, the question is, since 1991, she was already opposing to the swapping, did she …
A: That is misleading, Your Honor, because actually during the hearing in 1992 that the swapping was made.
(TSN,
The evidence on record negates
petitioner’s claim that respondent had knowledge of the planned swapping of
lots even before
ATTY. GARAYGAY:
Before the swapping, Your Honor, there was already a communication.
COURT:
What was that communication about – that she authorized you or did she not authorize you?
WITNESS:
Before the swapping, Your Honor, as I have said, she approached me because it was her desire to have the fishpond.
COURT:
Alright, next question?
ATTY. GARAYGAY:
I think that is all for the witness, Your Honor.
x x x x
COURT:
But the question is, when did she authorize you to swap, before you signed the agreement or after?
WITNESS:
Way back in 1990.
COURT:
So, before the signing?
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY.
Now, where did you meet her and talked of
the swapping of her share with that
WITNESS:
It was herself (sic) who went to our house and asked me for a favor, and it was that time when she asked for a certain amount to be spent for the anniversary of my grandfather and I said, I will only give you a part but for the amount that she was asking I said, I will give you the amount as soon as I have it.
Q: More or less, what month was that in 1990?
A: I cannot remember anymore.
(TSN,
A careful reading of Michael Francisco’s
Compliance filed with the trial court on January 24, 1992 will show that he
objected to the partition of the estate as approved by the trial court on
December 20, 1991 only because the sketch plan submitted by Attys. Sorbito and
Buenaventura was incomplete, in that the area was assigned only to Pedro
Buenaventura and Luz Buenaventura, and Emilia Vail was not indicated therein, and
that Lot Nos. 2380 and 2194 assigned to the IAC (which the latter had assigned
to Anacoreta Buenaventura and Beethoven Buenaventura) were not colored with the
color code agreed upon by the Joint Commissioners. Michael
Francisco did not interpose any objection to the December 20, 1991 partition relative
to the allocation of
As admitted by the IAC in its
Manifestation[34]
filed on
That sometime on May 7, 1991, our firm headed by Engr. Antonio Y. Bincal, as Geodetic Engineer, was hired to conduct a survey over the property of the late Felipe Buenaventura, subject matter of Spec. Proc. No. 053 (130-3139), to determine the respective shares and the actual area of the heirs of the late Felipe Buenaventura and that of Ilog Agricultural Corporation;
That pursuant to the instructions and agreement of the three (3) co-administrators, Michael B. Francisco, Beethoven Buenaventura, and Nilo Sorbito, and in accordance with the instructions of Michael B. Francisco, I conducted the survey of the area and prepared a parcellary plan in accordance with the instructions of Michael B. Francisco with conformity of the two (2) co-administrators Beethoven Buenaventura and Nilo Sorbito;
That the plan was submitted to the Court last November 25, 1991, however, correction was made pursuant to the instructions of Michael B. Francisco, particularly as to the actual site/location of the area pertaining to Beethoven Buenaventura; vis-a-vis that of his mother Anacoreta B. Francisco;
That as instructed, I have prepared a new parcellary plan, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A” of this affidavit;
That when I prepared the parcellary
plan, it is all in accordance with the instructions of Michael B. Francisco,
with the conformity of [the] other co-administrators Beethoven Buenaventura and
Nilo Sorbito.[35]
Michael Francisco’s Comment[36]
dated
Even the IAC to which Lot No. 1871-B
was assigned under the December 10, 1992 Order of the trial court, finally
agreed to the lease by it of Lot No. 1871-B should the lot be assigned to
respondent. What is so worrisome is that
in its Order dated November 9, 1993, the trial court allotted Lot No. 1871-B to
the IAC and, at the same time, declared that the distribution of Lot No. 1871-B
and a portion of Lot No. 1294 would be held in abeyance.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
On leave
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
* On leave.
[1] Records, p. 122.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] CA rollo, p. 28.
[28] Rollo, p. 29.
[29]
[30] G.R.
No. 92436,
[31] Litonjua v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 148116,
[32] Rollo, see Comment of Respondent, pp.
7-9.
[33]
[34] Records, pp. 63-65.
[35]
[36]